I've recently noticed that many people, be them Vietnamese, Cantonese, or others, tend to think that southern Han-Chinese (or at least Cantonese) are "Hanized" natives.
To my understanding, obviously the Han culture (and people) originated up north around the Yellow River basin. When the Han expanded southwards, they assimilated other peoples into their own culture and it's very likely that they even interbred. I am assuming this is the same case with peoples in modern southern China. If so then modern Cantonese are just as much "native" as they are Han as their ancestors interbred.
{{This will not always be true as distinct non-Han minorities continue toexist in these southern areas}}
Let's just look at the Hispanic population today, although some people remained purely native-American, some purely black and some purely European, many are mixed. You don't see these mixed people claiming to be solely one side or another.
{{I assure you we/they do! If you are as much as 1/3 Native American or in NZ 1/16 Maori you can be officially that race if you choose to define you culture as such, otherwise the race is extinct by any other rationale!}
In any case, I would just like to hear the justification of Vietnamese and some Cantonese who claim that southern Han-Chinese are "Hanized" natives instead of mix of Han and natives.
Well, there is some limited truth in this. These areas (Sichuan, Guanxi, Guangdong, Yunnan) had distinct cultures in them and different peoples that never even figured in any Han fuedal system or ritual that might define period 'Chinese'.
Southern China before Han includes among many a pan-SouthEast Asian culture know as Dong Song (after a north Vietnamese archaeological site) as well as the better know and more relevant Yi and Ba-shu culture. Of these a well defined Dian culture in Yunnan is a quite materially different late bronze age people. Yun some time ago provided a link on these southern groups and in it there was a fascinating cave picture of a 'shaman' above a crowd holding a ring pomelled Han sword suggesting such trappings were becoming a sign of authority. The Han describe the tattoed folk encountered , tropical disease and the unpleasantries of occupation in hostile areas.
The ancient 'Hanification' or whatever we might call it within ancient borders is far from 100% even today. There is no suggestion that such true existing regional minorities are disaproved of in the modern PRC, although some were wiped out in the later dynasties. In southern areas with distinct non-Han people groups remaining a few become tourism fixtures in themselves.
In Yunnan region specific modern cultures bear little relationship to the original Han/central plains cultures of the north in terms of their belief, clothing & cuisine ,ie the 'insect eating' Yunnan minorities form a colourful example.
These are some of the suggestions of the survival of ancient non-Han tribal groups & peoples in the peripheral aeas of the ancient Han.
This is NOT relevant as a political tool to break up China. To recognise they exist/existed is not really an example as the members analogy of 'Latin Americans' and racial mixes in the US but more like the existence of Peruvians or Brazilians who can draw ancestory back to
original native inhabitants (indians) rather than Hispanic citizens. There is mixing of course but it isnt universal. With the history being so long they all are quite surely a part of China.
It isnt required to see all true Chinese citizens needing to change into predominantly Han and it also follows that some variation in ethnicity & culture still fits within PRC identity (look at some fo the currency and the faces on them are non-Han people).
Regions like Xinjiang or Tibet on basis of culture could much more fit the issue of this thread and provide a stronger case for whether the inhabitants, ownership of land aside, would be considered 'Chinese'.
Without getting into the odd principle that 'nations' are a Western theory only and so aren't relevant to the motherland these southern groups who identify with a minority instead of being 'Chinese' are likely to be only a small % of the modern southern China (2,000 years later.)
The previous existence of non-Chinese original inhabitants can be patently observed in the material excavated and to recognise them does not mean a reason to turn to politics or even less of a reason for other outside regions bordering it to claim them. I dont think any are anyway.
Note; the movement of Chinese to Tibet in recent decades and the construction of rail there may mean that in the future the make up of Tibet ethnically will move in the same way. Not anti-PRC, this is fact. Of people I know who visited (Taiwanese & European) funnily enough they said standards in Tibet seem set to improve/better off by the Chinese efforts although it is natural to lament the impact on a distinct culture, i.e tourists disrupting 'sky burials' and such.
Conclusion; Yes there once was 'Hanification' even though it might now be more relevant to note Tibet as an example than south China today. The fact that there it began/occured 2,000 years ago to distinct cultures and continued over Chinese history is no real reason to take nationalism by claimed descendents of regional ancient minorities too seriously.
Minorities survive in many examples in the modern PRC and in the southern area this thread is discussing it seems unlikely seperatism or merger with another country would be anything that would be desired by modern inhabitants, by those that identify as 'Han' or the few minority cultures that still do exist.
There is some truth in the idea of a 'Cantonese' identity but even this was put to referendum (not going to happen of course) I would say it wouldnt result in a split. The only isue I have heard is over the offical prominence of Mandarin which displeases some in the south.
Loud voices dont reflect a common pattern of thought though.
We would need the opinions of a good number of local folk to understand the modern issues.
Edited by Kenneth, 21 December 2005 - 07:16 PM.
